Thursday, March 30, 2006

Case of Abdul Rahman - How to respond to the attack on Shariah rules

The following is a transcript of a circle I delivered recently:

Recently we saw the decision by the Afghan Supreme Court Judge to free Abdul Rahman, the man alleged to have converted to Christianity, whilst his case is reviewed is not surprising considering the world wide pressure that has been brought to bear upon Afghanistan in recent days.

We have seen the media attacking the Islamic rule of killing the Murtad (apostate), it is common for them to attack the Shariah rules such as the rules of cutting the hand of the thief, Jihad, marrying up to 4 wives, etc.

We need to respond correctly to such attacks

1) When responding to the attack of Shariah rules, we should take the offensive and not be defensive

For example on this case we can highlight that the countless of number of innocent people that the Western powers have killed and continue killing in the world. Such as in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Africa, India, Indonesia and more recently Afghanistan and Iraq. So who are they to talk about justice?

2) We must not invent reasons for the rules unless Allah (swt) has given specific reasons

Due to defeatism people invent reasons for many of the Shariah rules which Allah (swt) has not given. For example they say that it was revealed that the murtad should be killed is that at the time when Islam was revealed it was a new Deen and therefore it needed to protect itself so a harsh punishment were revealed for people who apostasied.

Other examples include: Islam permitted marrying up to four wives as there was more women in the society than men, Pork is haram because it is a dirty animal, Jihad was revealed only so that the people could protect themselves, etc.

So as an example it is completely incorrect to say that the reason why it is allowed for Muslim men to marry up to four wives is that there is more men then women in the world and that men normally die in war. This is not the illah for the rule as has not been mentioned in the divine texts. It would be a incorrect portrayal of Islam and very dangerous for us to site this as the reason for the rule, someone could say what if there is more men than women existing in certain places in the world, does this mean then it is permitted to marry more than one husband? Or that today women also fight as soldiers in some countries, so is it permitted for women to also marry more than one man? If we rationalise the rules by inventing reasons from the mind, this would lead us to abandoning these rules when that reason did not exist or maybe even changing the shar’iah as some corrupt scholars do today.

Many people have become used to justifying all the Shari’ah rules according to benefit (maslaHah), because they are influenced by the Western ideology and Western culture, which views benefit alone as a criterion for actions. Such an understanding contradicts Islam. The Prophet (saw) said:

“Whosoever interprets the Quran according to his opinion, let him seek his abode in the fire” [Tirmidhi]

“Whosoever interprets the Quran according to his opinion, even if he gets it right, he has indeed committed a sin” [Abu Dawud & Tirmidhi]

In the Sahih of Bukhari, on the authority of 'Urwa b. al-Zubayr who said: 'Abd Allah b. 'Amr b. al-'As overcame us with proof. I heard him say: “Allah will not deprive you of knowledge after he has given it to you, but it will be taken away through the death of the religious learned men with their knowledge. Then there will remain ignorant people who, when consulted, will give verdicts according to their opinions whereby they will mislead others and go astray.”

3) Allah (swt) has given reason for only some types of rules

The Islamic systems are composed of AHkam Sharai’ah related to ‘ibadat (worships), morals, foodstuffs, clothing, mu’amalat (transactions) and penal code. Allah has given us reasons for only some rules and therefore we must not invent reasons for others.

The divine rules related to ‘ibadat, morals, food-stuffs, and clothing cannot be reasoned by ‘illah (legal reason) since there is no ‘illah for these rules in the divine texts of the Quran and the Sunnah. They should be taken as they came in the text and should not be based upon an ‘illah. Prayer (Salaah), fasting (Sawm), the Hajj, zakaah, the method of praying the Salaah and the number of its rak’at, the rites of Hajj and the minimum amount of property liable to payment of zakaah (niSaab of zakaah) and the like, should be taken, accepted and submitted to as they came in the text (tawqeefiyyah) and no ‘illah is sought for them. The same thing applies to the prohibition of eating the meat of a dead animal, pork and the like.

Seeking an ‘illah for these rules is wrong and dangerous. This is because if an ‘illah was sought the result would be that if the ‘illah of the rule ceased to exist then the rule would no longer exist. The ‘illah is connected to the rule in existence and absence. As an example, if we assumed cleanliness was the ‘illah for the wudu, and physical exercise as the ‘illah for salaah, and hygiene as the ‘illah for fasting (Sawm) or the prohibition of pork etc., then in these situations, whenever the ‘illah does not exist, the rule would not exist either, this would lead us to abandoning these shariah rules. For example if someone raised a clean pig whom they had fed with good food and kept in a hygienic manner, would we then be permitted to eat it?

Therefore seeking an ‘illah is dangerous for the rule and its performance. Thus, it is obligatory to take rules of ‘ibadat as they are, without seeking an ‘illah for them.

Another example is the issue of alcohol, there is no illah for its prohibition, it is well known that it used be permitted at one time, even Hamza (ra) died while there was alcohol in his stomach as the verses prohibiting alcohol were revealed later. There is no illah contained in the verses prohibiting it, furthermore the Messenger (saw) said; “Wine (khamr) was forbidden for itself.”

With regards to the Mu’amalat (transactions) and penal code some of the ahkam (rules) have come with illah and some without any illah.

For example in respect to giving the spoils of Bani Nadhir to the Muhajireen and not the Ansar. Allah (swt) says regarding this:

“That it does not become a commodity between the rich among you.” [TMQ Al-Hashr:7]

While some other texts do not include an ‘illah at all such as:

“Allah has permitted bai’a (trading) and has forbidden Riba (interest).” [Al-Baqara:275]

The rules and evidences regarding the Muslim woman having to wear Khimar (headscarf) and Jilbab, the allowance for man to marry up to four wives at one time, the prohibition of women being rulers and many other rules have come without illah.

The valid ‘illah is the Shar’ai ‘illah that is mentioned in the text from Qur’an and Sunnah, for only these two are the Shar’ai texts. The ‘illah upon which the reasoned Hukm Shar’ai is built is a Shar’ai ‘illah and not a rational ‘illahi which is derived from the mind. In other words the ‘illah must be mentioned in the text either explicitly or implicitly or by deduction or through a process known as Qiyas undertaken by a Mujtahid.

The Shar’’ai ‘illah is that which is taken from a Shar’ai text and should be restricted to it and its meaning. The Shar’ai text has neither indicated that bringing about a benefit nor warding off harm as being the ‘illah. That which is brought in the text is not indicated by the time or the place nor indicated by the action itself. It is rather indicated by the text in manifesting the ‘illah of the Hukm. This text never changes, so no consideration is given to the time and place in this context.

4) The way to discuss shariah rules with non Muslims is to link them to the belief

When we discuss the Shariah rules with non-Muslims we should not discuss the rule itself detached from the belief and attempt to convince them of it

We should divert the discussion to the issue of the belief which is provable rationally. We can prove that Allah (swt) exists and that the Quran is the word of Allah (swt). Therefore it is rational for us to accept whatever emanates from the Quran whether we have been given a reason for it or not.

The Aqeeda (belief) can be discussed rationally, once we have proved it automatically whatever emanates from it must be accepted.

5) Discussing the consequences of implementing the shariah rules

The absence of illah in many of the rules does not mean that it is prohibited to discuss the consequences of applying the shariah rules upon the reality and how it will solve problems. This is permitted and useful especially when it comes to explaining the systems of Islam such as the social, economic, punishment and ruling systems. Explanation of the reality is not a justification for a hukm and we should be careful not to make consequences of applying the shariah rule as an illah for the rule.

For example we can discuss how the rules from the Islamic social system such as separation of men and women, the dress code, etc will create a society where there will be less agitation of the instinct of procreation and a society in which there will be less rape, molestation, fornication and the like as was the reality under the Islamic Khilafah in the past.

Another example is that of polygyny (marrying more than one wife), we can discuss how this shariah rule can solve problems in the reality. It us clear from the effect of polygyny/plurality of wives that in the community in which it is permitted there will not be a plurality of mistresses, and in communities which forbid the plurality of wives will have a plurality of mistresses. In addition, polygyny solves many other problems, which take place in a human community in its capacity as a human community, which depends on polygyny to solve them.

6) The hadd of the apostate (al-murtad)

Before discussing the punishment in Islam for the Murtad it is worth mentioning that in most societies in the world they have death penalties for certain crimes such as treason. Although apostasy from Islam is different to treason, the punishment for it is applied when it is done in an open manner in a society where the punishment of it is known. In reality if someone wanted to commit apostasy individually without creating an impact in society, they could either hide their disbelief in which case they would be a munafiq (hypocrite) and would not be punished – as their kufr would not be known. Or they could leave the country and move to a non Muslim country and apostatise, even the Khalifah cannot punish those Muslims living outside the authority of the Islamic state.

The fact that someone would commit open apostasy in a country where the punishment for it is well known is like a political statement of rebellion. Regarding the punishment for the apostate this is clear – the fact that Afghanistan has not implemented it demonstrates the fact that it does not implement Islam.

The apostate (murtad) is the one withdrawing from the deen of Islam. Whoever apostatises among the men and women, while mature and sane, is invited to Islam thrice and is restrained (imprisoned); either he reverts (to Islam) or is killed.

Allah ta’ala said: "Whoever among you apostatises from his deen and dies while he is kafir, those are the ones whose deeds have perished in the world and the Hereafter. And those are the inhabitants of the Fire, dwelling therein forever" [TMQ 2:21].

And Al-Bukhari narrated from Ikrimah who said: "Heretics (zanadiqah) were brought to Amir Al-Mu’mineen Ali (ra) so he burnt them. That reached ibn Abbas who said: If it were me, I would not have burnt them due to the Messenger of Allah (saw)'s saying: 'Do not punish with the punishment of Allah', and I would kill them due to the Messenger of Allah (saw)'s saying: 'Whoever changes his deen, kill him.'"

As for killing men, it is clear from the hadith; as for killing women, this is due to the generality of the hadith because he said: "Whoever changes" and 'whoever' (man) is of the words of generality. Also Ad-Daraqutni and Al-Bayhaqi extracted from Jabir: "Umm Marwan apostatised and the Prophet (saw) commanded to offer her Islam: Either she repents or she is killed."

As for the invalidity of apostasy from the child and insane, this is because they are not commissioned so they are not inflicted the hadd of apostasy due to the Prophet (saw)'s saying: "The pen is lifted from three: The child until he matures, the one sleeping until he awakes and the insane until he recuperates."

As for his being asked to repent thrice, this is due to the hadith of Umm Marwan that the Prophet (saw) commanded that she be asked to repent. And that is what Umar proceeded upon. From Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Abd Al-Qari who said: "A man came forward to Abu Musa so he asked him: Is there any news from the west? He said: Yes, a man disbelieved after his Islam. He said: What did you do with him? He said: We brought him close and struck off his neck. Umar said: If only you imprisoned him three (days) and fed him a loaf of bread daily and asked him to repent. Perhaps he would have repented and return to the command of Allah? O Allah, I was neither present nor was I pleased when it was conveyed to me." Umar and Abu Bakr proceeded thereupon.

Ad-Daraqutni and Al-Bayhaqi extracted "that Abu Bakr asked a woman named Umm Firqah to repent. She disbelieved after her Islam and she did not repent, so he killed her." Hence it is established that the Messenger (saw) asked the apostate to repent and likewise Abu Bakr and Umar asked for repentance after him, thus the apostate is asked to repent before killing him. As for asking him to repent thrice, thrice is not a restriction but the least wherein an excuse occurs normally. Otherwise it is allowed to ask for repentance more times because the objective is offering him Islam to return to it and to be given sufficient time to return. It is narrated that Abu Musa asked the apostate—whom Muadh demanded he kill and he killed—to repent for two months before the arrival of Muadh. And it was narrated from Umar that the period of asking to repent is three days; if he repents, his repentance is accepted and he is not killed.

However the repentance is accepted from the apostate if he does not repeat his apostasy whereas if he repeats his apostasy, his repentance is not accepted. Rather he is killed whether he repents or not due to His saying ta’ala: "Verily those who believe then disbelieve then believe then disbelieve then increase in disbelief, Allah will not forgive them nor guide them the (right) way" [TMQ 4:137]. His saying ta’ala: "Allah will not forgive them" [TMQ 4:137] means Allah will not accept their repentance; likewise the State does not accept their repentance.

Al-Ashram narrated from Dhubyana bin Amara "that a man from Bani S'ad passed by the mosque of Banu Hanifah and they were reciting the poetic verses of Musailama (the false prophet). He returned to ibn Masud and mentioned that to him. So he sent for them and they were brought to him. He asked them to repent and they repented. So he let them free except a man among them called ibn An-Nuwaha, and he said: I have arrived at you once. You claim you have repented but I consider that you have repeated, so he killed him." The one who kills the apostate is the State by the rule of the ruler so if one of the Muslims kills him deliberately, there is retaliation upon him just as killing any kafir of the State's citizens.

The apostate is the one who disbelieves after his Islam so everyone who disbelieves after his Islam becomes an apostate. A Muslim disbelieves in four ways: Doctrine/belief ('itiqad), doubt (shakk), saying and action. As for belief, therein are two aspects. Firstly, the decisive belief in what came a decisive prohibition against it or the decisive command with its opposite, like believing that Allah has a partner or believing that the Qur'an is not the word of Allah. The second aspect is denying what is known from the deen by necessity (ma'lum min ad-deen bi ad-dharura) like denying jihad, the forbiddance of drinking khamr, cutting the thief's hand and the like. As for doubt, it is the doubt in the beliefs ('aqaid) and everything whose evidence is /efinite (qat'iyy) so whoever doubts that Allah is One or Muhammad is a Messenger or the lashing of the zani or the like has disbelieved. As for the saying, its meaning is the saying that does not bear any interpretation (ta'weel). So whoever says that the Messiah is the son of Allah and that Muhammad came with Islam from himself or the like has disbelieved without doubt.

Whereas the saying that bears interpretation does not make its speaker a kafir if the saying bears kufr 99% and bears iman 1%, the side of iman outweighs the 99% because it is the side of iman since with the existence of the 1% there exists the possibility of interpretation. So he is not made a kafir as he is not counted a kafir except if the saying is kufr in a decisive way. As for the action, its meaning is the action that bear no interpretation that it is kufr. So whoever prostrates to an idol and prays in a church the prayer of a Christian, he disbelieves and apostatises from Islam because the Christian's prayer is kufr without bearing interpretation so whoever does it had committed kufr without bearing interpretation. As for the action that bears interpretation, its doer does not disbelieve. So the one who enters the church does not disbelieve because it is possible that he entered for the spectacle (furja) and it is possible that he enters it for prayer. And the one reading the Bible has not disbelieved because it is possible that he read it to study it in order to refute it, and it is possible he read it believing in it and so on. So every action that bears interpretation does not make its doer a disbeliever nor is he an apostate if he does it. Apostasy is proven by what proves hudud other than zina, namely the testimony of two trustworthy men or a man and two women i.e. the Shari'ah proof because there came no text specific for it.

All of the Shariah rules including all the hudud will be implemented under the Khilafah state when it returns

Al-Nasaii and Ibn Majah narrated on the authority of Abu Hurayra(ra) that the messenger (saw) said: “One Hadd (one punishment from Islam) which is implemented on the earth is better for the people of the earth than to be rained for forty mornings". [Saheeh according to Suyuti]

Wednesday, March 29, 2006

Analysis of Coup in Mauritania

The following is the draft translation of a political analysis article written in Arabic.

Question: At the beginning of this month, a coup d’etat took place in Mauritania. President Maaoya Sid'Ahmed Ould Taya was over thrown while he was out of the country during his return from “Saudi Arabia”. The rule was seized after him by men who used to work with him, does that coup d’etat mean only a replacement of faces to absorb the anger of the street because Ould Taya made relations with “Israel”, and oppressed national and Islamic governments, or is it an actual coup d’etat which came with a new political influence instead of the old political influence?

Answer: Ould Taya came to rule after a coup d’etat in 1984 on Wild Hidaleh, the European influence existed in Mauritania because it is a French colony, this continued till the beginning of 1998 when America was able to draw him to its side with the general chief officer, Wild Sidi Ali. After that, Mauritania entered the series of normalization with the state of Jews under the influence of America. Then Ould Taya started to aggravate his campaigns on “the Muslims” under the excuse of fighting terrorism following the American method, and at the same time on the groups allied to Europe. That is why on the 3rd of May 2003, he made a wide security campaign against “the Muslims” making use of the explosions which took place in Casablanca and Riyadh at that time, trying to find a “terrorist” relation between these and those. But a coup d’etat led by a group of “national officers” preceded him in June 2003 after the turmoil of his oppression for these movements. Those who made the coup d’etat were about to succeed because they got hold of the presidential headquarters and the military headquarters. Ould Taya was able to run away until he was rescued by America and “Israel” by fighting operations against the revolutionists. After “36” hours from the coup d’etat, he was captured and Ould Taya returned to rule, he accused Libya at that time of being responsible of the coup d’etat. It was Europe who was behind the mentioned coup d’etat because Ould Taya led the country towards the American influence. That is how Ould Taya continued to rule, and his relations with America became stronger because it took a new horizon in the military field.
The American army accomplished lately great manoeuvres in the coast region, south of the great desert, it was described to be the greatest manoeuvres witnessed by Africa since the second world war under the excuse of war against terrorism. Ould Taya continued to get hold of the reigns until the present coup d’etat took place against him on 03.08.2005 while being outside the country returning from paying condolences for Saudi Arabia because of the death of King Fahd. He who follows the procedures of the coup d’etat and what followed will notice the following:

1. By the beginning of the coup d’etat, at 3 o'clock in the dawn of the 3rd of August, the revolutionists directed themselves towards the military headquarters and arrested the president of the military organization officer Al-Arabi Ould Sidi Ali. They didn’t negotiate with him to go along with them because of their former knowledge about him, and they put a number of the officers under compulsory residency (House arrest).

2. They went to the house of the general security officer, Ali Ould Mohammed Fal, most of them were from the presidential guards, they besieged him in his house and proposed to him to lead the coup d’etat because they wanted a great officer in comparison to them and at the same time (a professional in his work) without any political greed. He accepted the offer and he was appointed after that as head of the military council. This is how the coup d’etat succeeded.

3. The popular front in Mauritania headed by Mohammed Al-Ameen, who is an ally for Europe, welcomed the coup d’etat.

4. America condemned the coup d’etat after it took place and demanded frankly the return of president Maaoya Ould Taya to authority. The spokesman of the foreign ministry, Tom Cassey, said “we call for the return of the system under that shade of the government of president Ould Taya.” It didn’t leave its condemnation for the coup d’etat until the African Union issued a statement calling for normalization of relations with the revolutionists. Adam Early, spokesman of the foreign ministry, declared on 08.08.2005 “the African union issued a statement about the developments in this country and we share its point of view.”

5. As for France, it called in a general talk to “respect democracy and the legitimate constitutional framework.”

6. As for Russia, the Russian foreign ministry was satisfied in issuing a statement in which it warned to show hope in “a quick solution for the situation in a constitutional method and in what serves the interests of the Mauritanian nation without using violence.”

7. As for Britain, its agents’ movement to support the coup d’etat drew the attention: Morocco hastened to send the head of the Moroccans foreign intelligence, Mr. Yaseen al-Mansouri, to visit Nouakchott on 04.08.2005. then the visit of the Libyan foreign minister, Abdel Rahman Shalkam, and his declaration after meeting the leader of the coup d’etat “the will of the Mauritanian nation should be taken into consideration” then he added “after listening to the words of the president of the military council, there’s a notion that the Mauritanian nation began to support the change.” Adding that Libya supports what the Mauritanian nation supports. Upon that, the previous data shows that the coup d’etat on Ould Taya was a serious one, meaning a change in policy and not a change in faces. Had it been a change in faces, the army’s headquarters would have stayed as it is and only the government would have been changed. But to arrest the president of the organization and other officers of the headquarters to be put under compulsory residence, this means true change. Add to that the international attitudes for America and Europe and the internal attitudes “the popular front”, all that shows that it is a serious coup d’etat and that Europe: France and Britain, are the ones who led it. And that America had lost Mauritania periodically and we say periodically because Mauritania is of interest for America to penetrate into the region there. It is a support for the Policario as the head of the spear for America in the region. After losing Mauritania, nothing was left except the
Policario and alone it will be of less impact than it was when it was backed by Mauritania.

23 Rajab 1426 AH
28.08.2005 CE

Analysis on the EU summit

The following is the draft translation of a political analysis article written in Arabic.

Question: The twenty five chiefs of the European Union met in London on 27.10.2005, but before the eve of that day they ended their summit without announcing anything important, does that mean that the European Union is on the way of disengagement?

Answer: There are two matters which effect strongly the European Union:
1. The Nationalities.
2. The conspiracies of America

As for the first, the national trend is an instinctive aspect in humans, a person likes to be with his nation, and rebels with them against others. This instinctive trend will not be solved except with Islam, because it is the true religion which Allah (swt) has sent a mercy to people. It is the religion in which Allah said: "The most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you" [Al-Hujurat: 13], and the saying of Rasulullah (saw): "There is no favour for an Arab on a foreigner except in being more pious", this is what made several nations and tribes organize and melt in the crucible of Islam.

Nothing will solve this problem other than Islam, this was a point of weakness in the Soviet Union, and it is also in the European Union. Therefore the interests of the countries of the European Union control its political work, hence the political work of the Union, that is why the interests of France the agricultural country were other than those of Britain the non-agricultural country… and so on.

As for the second, America penetrated the countries of the Union by special relations with some countries especially the ten countries which joined the Union at the beginning of July 2004, most of them are regions of influence for America, Romano Prodi -former head of the European legation- said on 19.04.2003: "Some of the new countries of the European Union has strong relations with the united States concerning issues of security." Therefore America has effect in their settling and moving. That is why when the chiefs of the European Union met (which was previously agreed upon since their former summit in June 2004, concerning the issue of the Union’s budget 2007-2013) the problem which failed the former summit was still without solution:

Britain refuses the support for agriculture or any kind of protection, and wants freedom of trade, supported in that by Denmark, Poland, and others, but France insists on keeping the protection and support for the agricultural products and refuses the freedom of open trade, fearing that it will affect its peasants, supported in that by Germany’s Shroeder. America was the absent and present in the meeting, it refuses any agricultural support, and it convinced the delegate of the European Union -Peter Mendelson- to discuss the issue of cancelling the support. France warned the delegate from presenting any preposition to reduce charges which protect the European peasants from the International competence which is less in price, (In spite of that, the European delegate presented two days after the summit of London on 29.10.2005, a proposition for a gradual reduction of the support and also a reduction of the tax charges between 35-60%, in front of the agricultural imports in other countries, yet America agreed only on a reduction of 55-90%) any way, those who support free trade took upon themselves to fight the policy of protection, the Danish Prime Minister Rasmusen said: "Europe has to cling to open economy and competence, and must refuse protection". He added: "last summit was a political catastrophe -pointing to the disputes of June- we have to originate a better atmosphere".

Blair called for a (more rational method to spend the money of the European Union) Blair seeks to reach an agreement which will renovate the priorities of the agreement of the European Union away from supporting the agricultural products. While the French President demanded more protection for the French labourers and refused to discuss transferring the money specified to support the peasants, to other purposes and to direct it towards innovation -this is what Britain wants- before the year 2013.

The former German consultant Shroeder said: "the free economic-system according to the British model, do not represent a model for all the countries of Europe."
Thus, the meeting carried its failure with it, the main problem is disputed upon among the countries of the Union, and they are divided into two groups and the third one is silent. Therefore the description of one of the economic analysts of the European Summit saying: "the chiefs were not in a good mood to hold that Summit" was a correct description. Some newspapers issued that, limiting the summit to one day was upon the wish of Chirac the French President. Anyway, such disputes will stay in the corridors of the European Union as long as there are nationalities, and as long as there are interferences and conspiracies from America in Europe, even before the origination of the Union in its present condition and after that, the interference of America in overthrowing Degaul, and its conspiracies in Germany against Shroeder, are tangible matters, even one of the satellite channels issued yesterday 18.11.2005 a declaration for the Russian politician (Jeryenuviski) which points to American fingers in the incidents of the suburbs of Paris. As for the disengagement of the European Union, this is unlikely in the near future, because political, economic and currency institutes were formed for the Union, but we can say that -to reach a political unity with one resolution, and to have one international effect- will stay a matter of discussion, pulling and drawing according to the two formerly mentioned matters.

07 Shawal 1426 AH
09 November 2005 CE

Monday, March 20, 2006

Q&A: Gradual implementation of Islam?

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

The following is the draft english translation of a question and answer in Arabic.

The Question:
We know that gradual progression (Tadaruj) of implementing the Ahkam is forbidden, it is not allowed to implement part of the Hukm and leave the other part, all of the Islamic Ahkam must be implemented together, so how should we understand the two following Hadith which are mentioned by those who call for gradual progression, and who say that part of the Hukm could be implemented and the possibility of leaving the other part without implementation? In other words, should both Hadith be refused or is it possible to gather them with the proofs of not allowing gradual progression and the necessity of implementing all of the Islamic Ahkam? The two Hadith are:

حديث معاذ بن جبل رضي الله عنه: عَنْ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ لِمُعَاذِ بْنِ جَبَلٍ حِينَ بَعَثَهُ إِلَى الْيَمَنِ إِنَّكَ سَتَأْتِي قَوْمًا أَهْلَ كِتَابٍ فَإِذَا جِئْتَهُمْ فَادْعُهُمْ إِلَى أَنْ يَشْهَدُوا أَنْ لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللَّهُ وَأَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ فَإِنْ هُمْ أَطَاعُوا لَكَ بِذَلِكَ فَأَخْبِرْهُمْ أَنَّ اللَّهَ قَدْ فَرَضَ عَلَيْهِمْ خَمْسَ صَلَوَاتٍ فِي كُلِّ يَوْمٍ وَلَيْلَةٍ فَإِنْ هُمْ أَطَاعُوا لَكَ بِذَلِكَ فَأَخْبِرْهُمْ أَنَّ اللَّهَ قَدْ فَرَضَ عَلَيْهِمْ صَدَقَةً تُؤْخَذُ مِنْ أَغْنِيَائِهِمْ فَتُرَدُّ عَلَى فُقَرَائِهِمْ فَإِنْ هُمْ أَطَاعُوا لَكَ بِذَلِكَ فَإِيَّاكَ وَكَرَائِمَ أَمْوَالِهِمْ وَاتَّقِ دَعْوَةَ الْمَظْلُومِ فَإِنَّهُ لَيْسَ بَيْنَهُ وَبَيْنَ اللَّهِ حِجَابٌ.
The Hadith of Mu’adh Ibn Jabal, may Allah have content on him: after Ibn Abbas he said that Rasulullah (saw) said to Mu’adh Ibn Jabal, when he sent him to Yemen, you will go to people who believe in the Book so when you reach them ask them to say, that there is no god except Allah and that Muhammad is His Rasul, if they obey, tell them that Allah imposed on them five prayers each day and night, if they obey tell them that Allah imposed charity to be taken from the rich and given to the poor, if they obey you, then be just with their money and be ware of the appeal of the oppressed, because there is no screen between him and Allah.

حديث عثمان بن أبي العاص: عَنِ الْحَسَنِ عَنْ عُثْمَانَ بْنِ أَبِي الْعَاصِ أَنَّ وَفْدَ ثَقِيفٍ قَدِمُوا عَلَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فَأَنْزَلَهُمْ الْمَسْجِدَ لِيَكُونَ أَرَقَّ لِقُلُوبِهِمْ فَاشْتَرَطُوا عَلَى النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَنْ لَا يُحْشَرُوا وَلَا يُعْشَرُوا وَلَا يُجَبُّوا وَلَا يُسْتَعْمَلَ عَلَيْهِمْ غَيْرُهُمْ قَالَ فَقَالَ إِنَّ لَكُمْ أَنْ لَا تُحْشَرُوا وَلَا تُعْشَرُوا وَلَا يُسْتَعْمَلَ عَلَيْكُمْ غَيْرُكُمْ وَقَالَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ لَا خَيْرَ فِي دِينٍ لَا رُكُوعَ فِيهِ قَالَ وَقَالَ عُثْمَانُ بْنُ أَبِي الْعَاصِ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ عَلِّمْنِي الْقُرْآنَ وَاجْعَلْنِي إِمَامَ قَوْمِي.
The Hadith of Othman Ibn Al-A’ss: after Al-Hasan after Othman Ibn Abi Al-Asi, that a group from Thakeef came to Rasulullah (saw), so he accommodated them in the Masjid, to be more compassionate to their hearts, so they made a condition on Rasulullah not to be congregated (yuhsharu) or to collect the tithe or take the tribute from them (yu’sharu) and no other than one of them will be used on them, Rasulullah said you will not be congregated or tributated and no other than one of you will be used on you, and said there is no goodness in a religion with no kneeling (prayer) in it, Othman Ibn Abi Al-Ass said Oh Rasulullah teach me the Qur'an and make me Imam of by people.

The Answer:

Before answering the above two mentioned Hadith concerning the subject of gradual progression of implementing part of the Ahkam and leaving the other part, I would like to explain the following:
1- When the Shar'i Hukm of a subject is derived, its reality is well studied then the proofs on this reality are gathered, these proofs are examined fundamentally so as to derive the Shar'i Hukm.
2- Every effort is made first to connect the proofs, because using both proofs is better than neglecting one of them.
3- If connecting was difficult, then we resort to preference according to its followed principles: the precise (Al-Muhkam) cancels the analogous (Al-Mutashabeh), the definitive (Qat’i) cancels the speculative (Thanni), if two speculative evidences met together, then the strength of the proof is examined concerning the record (Sanad) and publicity, the one with strong record is favored over the less powerful, and the specific (Khas) is favored than the general ('Aam), and the restricted (Muqayad) over the absolute (Mutlaq), and the direct meaning (Mantuq) over the implied meaning (Mafhum) understood… Etc as detailed in that chapter.

Now lets discuss the subject of gradual progression (Tadaruj) and implementing part of the Ahkam and leaving another, and see how both Hadith will be understood:

1- Gradual progression and implementing part and leaving another is prohibited and its proofs are definitively proven, and decisively evident, we will mention some of them:
Allah (swt) said:
((وَأَنِ احْكُم بَيْنَهُم بِمَآ أَنزَلَ اللّهُ وَلاَ تَتَّبِعْ أَهْوَاءهُمْ وَاحْذَرْهُمْ أَن يَفْتِنُوكَ عَن بَعْضِ مَا أَنزَلَ اللّهُ إِلَيْكَ))
“So rule between them by that which Allah has revealed, and follow not their desires, but beware of them in case they seduce you from just some part of that which Allah has revealed to you” [Al-Maida: 49] This is a decisive order from Allah to His Rasul and to the Muslim rulers after him, of the necessity of ruling with all the Ahkam which Allah had sent, whether an order or a prohibition, because the expression what (MA) which is mentioned in the verse of the Qur'an, means the general, so it includes all the delivered Ahkam.
Allah (swt) forbade His Rasul and the Muslim rulers after him from following the whims (desires) of people and not to obey their desires Allah said:
((وَلاَ تَتَّبِعْ أَهْوَاءهُمْ))
“and follow not their desires.” [Al-Maida: 49] Also Allah warned His Rasul and the Muslim rulers after him to be seduced by people, and to divert him from implementing some of the Ahkam which Allah had sent for him, he should implement all the Ahkam which were sent to him by Allah, whether orders or prohibitions, not minding what people say. Allah (swt) said:
((وَاحْذَرْهُمْ أَن يَفْتِنُوكَ عَن بَعْضِ مَا أَنزَلَ اللّهُ إِلَيْكَ))
“But beware of them in case they seduce you from just some part of that which Allah has revealed to you.” [Al-Maida: 49] and He (swt) said:
((وَمَن لَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللّهُ فَأُوْلَـئِكَ هُمُ الْكَافِرُونَ))
“Whosoever does not rule by that which Allah has revealed, they are disbelievers (Kafiroon)” [Al-Maida: 44] and in second verse Allah (swt) said:
((وَمَن لَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللّهُ فَأُوْلَـئِكَ هُمُ الظَّالِمُونَ))
““Whosoever does not rule by that which Allah has revealed, they are Thalimoun (unjust).” [Al-Maida: 45] And in a third verse Allah (swt) said:
((وَمَن لَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللّهُ فَأُوْلَـئِكَ هُمُ الْفَاسِقُونَ))
“Whosoever does not rule by that which Allah has revealed, they are Fasiqoon (evil doers)” [Al-Maida: 47] In these three Ayat, Allah considered he who does not rule with all what Allah had sent down from Ahkam, whether orders or prohibitions, to be a Kafir, Unjust and evil doers. Because what (Ma) which is repeated in the three verses means the general, so it includes all the Shar'i Ahkam which Allah had sent, whether orders or prohibitions.
This is how the Khulafah ar-Rashideen used to implement the Ahkam of Islam on the conquered countries, and they are well acknowledged of the Book of Allah and how the prophet used to implement these Ahkam, they implemented the Ahkam all together, without delay or putting off or gradual progression (Tadarruj). For example: they did not allow he who adopts Islam to drink alcohol or commit adultery for one year then to be forbidden after that...The Ahkam were implemented all together. Thus implementing the Ahkam on the conquered countries is undoubted and repeated thoroughly.
Therefore any speculative proof has no effect on this Hukm, because forbidding gradual progression and the necessity of implementing all the Ahkam of Islam are established by definitive texts.

2- That is why any speculative proof which has any doubt to be contradicting to the definitive, will be cancelled by the definitive, this means that the speculative should be understood in a manner which does not contradict the definitive, in other words, both proofs should be used to understand the speculative in a manner which does not contradict the definitive if possible, otherwise we resort to preference, that is to take the definitive and reject the speculative.

3- Now, is it possible to use both proofs, can we understand the speculative in a manner which does not contradict the definitive for this issue?
Lets start with the first Hadith: the Hadith of Mu’adh Ibn Jabal:
"…call them to say that there is no god except Allah and that Muhammad is His Rasul, if they obey you tell them that Allah imposed five prayers on them… If they obey you tell them that Allah imposed charity on them… if they obey you, beware of taking their money unjustly, and beware the appeal of the oppressed…"
A. The Hadith is correct concerning the support and the text, there is no ambiguity in it, it has been reported by Al-Bukhari.
B. It is not correct to understand from it the possibility of gradual progression in the Ahkam, otherwise it will contradict the definitive, and this is not allowed because prohibition of gradual progression is fixed by the definitive, this is what the Sahabah (r.d) did when conquering, they implemented Islam as a whole on the conquered countries, and this is repeated thoroughly.
C. The Hadith is a text about prayer and Zakat, no one of the scholars said the possibility of ordering prayer without paying Zakat, that means those who call for gradual progression, do not ask to separate prayer from Zakat, they do not allow the Muslim to pray and not pay Zakat, They measure things on the (Mafhum) of the Hadith concerned with prayer and Zakat, they measure the gradual progression in implementing the other Ahkam, this is false, because the Hukm of the origin according to which they measured is not enacted by them, because they don’t say gradual progression in prayer and Zakat, but they speak of gradual progression in implementing the branches of the other Ahkam, taking into consideration that the Hadith is a text about prayer and Zakat.
D. That is why the Hadith is not correct to be taken as evidence on gradual progression, because the origin which is mentioned in it (gradual progression in prayer and Zakat) is not used by anyone, even by those who use the Hadith as an evidence on gradual progression.
E. That is why it is not correct in any way to understand from the Hadith that gradual progression -in implementing a part of the Hukm and leaving another- is permitted, because then it will contradict the definitive which prohibits gradual progression in the first place, and second the origin is not measured according to it because the origin (gradual progression in prayer and Zakat) is not in use.
F. Therefore should it be rejected or is it possible to use it with what does not contradict the definitive? The answer could be understood as follows:
The direct meaning (Mantuq) of the Hadith does not point to gradual progression in implementing part of the Ahkam and leaving the other part, the implied meaning (Mafhum) of it points to that. The text of the Hadith is: "Call them to say… so if they obey you tell them that Allah imposed five prayers on them… so if they obey you tell them that Allah imposed charity on them…"
What is understood from the text (Mantuq) tells us to call them to believe, if they do, to call them to prayer if they do, to call them to give Zakat. It is not understood from the text (Mantuq) that if they do not believe not to call them to pray and if they did not pray not to tell them to give Zakat. This is understood from ‘’the opposite understanding’ (mafhum al-Mukhalafah) of the condition, which means if they did not believe don’t call them to prayer and if they do not pray don’t call them to give Zakat.
(Mafhum Al-Shart) in any text is dispensed if it contradicts (Mantuq) in another text which is (Maktu' or Mathnoun) because the (Mantuq) is given priority over (Mafhum), not only if it opposes the (Mantuq) of the (Qat’i) but even if it contradicts (Mantuq), (Thanni), then (Mafhum) is dispensed and will not be put to practice.
That is why the Hadith is understood according to its (Mantuq) and stop there, (Mafhum Al-Mukhalafah) is not put to practice because it contradicts (Mantuq) the open proofs which necessitate taking the complete (Ahkam) of Islam.
To dispense with (Mafhum Al-Mukhalafah) with (Al-Mantuq) is an established issue in (Al-Usul), and is agreed upon by those who act according to (Mafhum) and those who do not act according to it.
For example: Allah says:
((وَلاَ تُكْرِهُوا فَتَيَاتِكُمْ عَلَى الْبِغَاءِ إِنْ أَرَدْنَ تَحَصُّنًا))
"But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity" [Al-Nur: 33] the (Mantuq) from this text, is to prohibit forcing women to commit adultery, if they seek chastity. The opposite understanding (Mafhum Al-Mukhalafah) as a result of the condition is to force them, if they do not want chastity, but this is rejected with what is understood from the text (Mantuq);
((وَلاَ تَقْرَبُوا الزِّنَا إِنَّهُ كَانَ فَاحِشَةً وَسَاءَ سَبِيلاً))
"Nor come nigh to adultery: for it is an indecent (deed) and an evil way" [Al-Isra': 32], that is why it is not acted according to (Mafhum Al-Muklhalafah) in the ayat;
((إِنْ أَرَدْنَ تَحَصُّنًا))
"When they desire chastity" [Al-Nur: 33], we stop at the direct meaning (Mantuq) of the ayat, we act according to its (Mantuq) and so they are not forced to commit adultery if they seek chastity, the Hukm in case they do not want chastity is not taken from (Mafhum) of this Ayat but from the other proofs which prohibit adultery absolutely.
Also as an example Allah says:
((وَإِذَا ضَرَبْتُمْ فِي الأَرْضِ فَلَيْسَ عَلَيْكُمْ جُنَاحٌ أَنْ تَقْصُرُوا مِنَ الصَّلاَةِ إِنْ خِفْتُمْ ...))
"When ye travel through the earth, there is no blame on you if ye shorten your prayers, for fear…" [An-Nisa': 101], its (Mantuq) is to shorten prayer in case of fear, (Mafhum Al-Shart) is not to shorten prayer if they are not afraid, but this (Mafhum) is dispensed with by the (Mantuq) of the Hadith in which the prophet (saw) answered about the probability of shortening prayer in case of safety, while the ayat mentioned the condition; ((إِنْ خِفْتُمْ ...)) "If you fear", Rasulullah (saw) said:
«صدقة تصدق الله بها عليكم فاقبلوا صدقته».
"It is a donation from Allah to you, so accept it". That is why we act according to the (Mantuq) of the ayat, that is to shorten prayer in case of fear, as for shortening prayer in case of safety, this is not taken from (mafhum) the ayat but from other evidences, that is the above mentioned Hadith of Rasulullah (saw), which shows the probability of shortening prayer in case of fear and safety, because shortening prayer is a charity from Allah to his worshippers.
The same is said about the Hadith of Mu’adh, the (Mantuq) of the Hadith is followed but (Mafhum Al-Shart) is dispensed with, if they do not pray, Hukm al-Zakat is taken from other evidences, which necessitate imposing Zakat as an absolute duty, whether they pray or they don’t.
Thus we act according to the (Mantuq and Mafhum) of the evidences which prohibit the gradual implementation of part of the Ahkam and leaving another part, it is acted according to the (Mantuq) of the Hadith of Mu’adh but not its (Mafhum). Thus work is done by the evidences which are according to Usul ul Fiqh (Principles of jurisprudence).

As for the second Hadith:
حديث عثمان بن أبي العاص: عَنِ الْحَسَنِ عَنْ عُثْمَانَ بْنِ أَبِي الْعَاصِ أَنَّ وَفْدَ ثَقِيفٍ قَدِمُوا عَلَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فَأَنْزَلَهُمْ الْمَسْجِدَ لِيَكُونَ أَرَقَّ لِقُلُوبِهِمْ فَاشْتَرَطُوا عَلَى النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَنْ لَا يُحْشَرُوا وَلَا يُعْشَرُوا وَلَا يُجَبُّوا وَلَا يُسْتَعْمَلَ عَلَيْهِمْ غَيْرُهُمْ قَالَ فَقَالَ إِنَّ لَكُمْ أَنْ لَا تُحْشَرُوا وَلَا تُعْشَرُوا وَلَا يُسْتَعْمَلَ عَلَيْكُمْ غَيْرُكُمْ وَقَالَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ لَا خَيْرَ فِي دِينٍ لَا رُكُوعَ فِيهِ قَالَ وَقَالَ عُثْمَانُ بْنُ أَبِي الْعَاصِ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ عَلِّمْنِي الْقُرْآنَ وَاجْعَلْنِي إِمَامَ قَوْمِي.
The Hadith of Othman Ibn Al-A’ss: after Al-Hasan after Othman Ibn Abi Al-Asi, that a group from Thakeef came to Rasulullah (saw), so he accommodated them in the Masjid, to be more compassionate to their hearts, so they made a condition on Rasulullah not to be congregated (yuhsharu) or to collect the tithe or take the tribute from them (yu’sharu) and no other than one of them will be used on them, Rasulullah said you will not be congregated or tributated and no other than one of you will be used on you, and said there is no goodness in a religion with no kneeling (prayer) in it, Othman Ibn Abi Al-Ass said Oh Rasulullah teach me the Qur'an and make me Imam of by people. This expression is for Abu Dawud. Not to be asked to pray (yujabbu) this word is taken from kneeling and was used as a metaphor for prayer.

We say about this Hadith;
This Hadith is accepted although Al-Munthiri said about it (it was said that Al-Hasan Al-Basri did not hear from Othman Ibn Al-Ass) but the saying here is in the form of the unknown, therefore it could be used as a proof.
In the same manner in which we spoke about the first Hadith we say about this Hadith:
· It is not correct to understand from it, that gradual progression is allowed in implementing part of the Ahkam and leaving another part, because the definitive proofs are established about prohibiting gradual progression in implementing the Ahkam.
· Thus we could understand the Hadith in a manner which does not contradict the definitive proofs: that is to work with both proofs: the definitive and the speculative, or to use the definitive proof and reject the speculative, if both proofs could not be used. This means to intend to join the proofs if possible or to go to probability, it is known that the absolute cancels the speculative.
· In this Hadith Rasulullah accepted from the delegation of Thakeef not to be (crowded or socially intercoursed or to be ruled by other than one of them) but they were not allowed not to pray. There is nothing wrong in not using other than one of them, this is allowed at the beginning if there is an efficient one of them, but what is meant by (not to be crowded or socially intercoursed)? (la Yuhsharun) means (not to be selected to go out to fight and no delegations are sent from them)... and (la Yuhsharun) also means not to take Zakat of their money. (la Yu’sharun) means not to take one tenth of their money, which is the charity). That is why the Hadith could be understood by taking the meaning of (Alla Yuhsharu) not to be asked to pay Zakat by going to him, but they stay in their place and he comes to collect the Zakat, this is one of the meanings of (yuhsharun) and the meaning of (la yu’sharun) that is not to take one tenth of their money, this is one of the meanings of (la Yu’sharu).

So what they made as a condition, which was accepted by Rasulullah (saw) is to pay Zakat in their places, and not to take one tenth of their money, only the Zakat. It is allowed for any one who wants to adopt Islam to make a condition to pay his Zakat in his place, and not to take one tenth of his money, only the Zakat. This is allowed and there is nothing wrong with it. Thus it is possible to join between the Hadith and the definitive proofs. But there is narration from Abu Dawud who reported that Wahab said:
«قال سألت جابراً عن شأن ثقيف إذ بايعت قال اشترطت على النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أن لا صدقة عليها ولا جهاد، وأنه سمع النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول: سيتصدقون ويجاهدون إذا أسلموا»
"I asked Jaber about the affair of Thakeef when they paid homage to Rasulullah (saw), he said, it made a condition for the prophet (saw) not to pay charity and not to go to Jihad, and that he heard Rasulullah say: they will pay charity and go to jihad if they adopt Islam". This makes it more probable that the meaning of (la yuhsharun) is not to be sent to fight meaning not to go to (Jihad), and the meaning of (la yu’sharun) is not to pay Zakat.

In this case the Hadith will be specifically for the delegation of Thakeef, and to accept their not going to jihad and not paying Zakat is a text which is meant only for them, and is not implemented on others, because the private Hukm does not surpass its owner. The specific Hukm needs an evidence for its being specific in order not to surpass it, and the evidence here is the telling of the prophet (saw) that if they adopt Islam they will give charity and go to jihad, and their condition will be nullified, and knowledge of the Unseen (Ilm al ghayb) such as the future is only possible for the prophet (saw), so this is an evidence that this Hukm is specific.
The specific Hukm are reported such as the testimony of Khuzaimah which was considered by Rasulullah (saw) to be as that of two men, it is special for him and does not surpass him to others, also the sacrifice of Abu Burdah which was a six month old goat, it is also special for him and does not surpass him to others, because to sacrifice a goat it must be one year old.

So we can use both proofs: the gradual progression of Ahkam is forbidden, according to the definitive proofs and the gradual progression of jihad and Zakat is special for the delegation of Thakeef, because the prophet already knew that if they adopt Islam they will go to jihad and pay Zakat.

The summary:
The gradual progression of part of Al-Ahkam and leaving others is prohibited, because of the definitive proofs about that.
The Hadith of Mu’adh Ibn Jabal is taken by its direct meaning (Mantuq) and not by the opposite understanding (Mafhum Al-Mukhalafah) of the mentioned condition.
The Hadith of Abu Dawud in both of its stories, where the prophet did not agree on their leaving prayer, and accepted their abandoning Jihad and Zakat, is a special condition for that delegation, because the prophet knew through revelation that their condition will be cancelled because when they adopt Islam they will go to jihad and pay Zakat.

So both Hadith will not be rejected, but they will be joined together with the definitive proofs which point to the prohibition of gradual progression in implementing part and leaving another part of Al-Ahkam, according to the manner which we explained.

12 Muharram 1427 AH
11 February 2006 CE

Thursday, March 16, 2006

The responsibility of the Ulema in working for the Khilafah and upholding the truth

The following is the transcript of a talk delivered to Ulema on this subject.

“Verily those who fear Allah from His servants are the Ulema” [TMQ Fatir: 28].

Allah (swt) mentioned the reality of the Ulema in this verse

And the Prophet (saw) emphasised the importance of the Ulema in many ahadith:

The Prophet (saw) said: “The Ulema are the inheritors of the Prophets”

We know that they cannot be the inheritors in Prophethood as this ended with the final Messenger Muhammad (saw), rather it means they are inheritors in the sense of responsibility of spreading the Deen, working to remove munkar and upholding the truth

Abu Nu’aim narrated that He (saw) said: “Two types of people who, if they are righteous, the people are righteous and if they are bad, the people are bad: The scholars and rulers” (Abu Nu’aim narrated it in ‘Al-Hulya’).

Ad-Darimi narrated in the book ‘Al-Muqaddimah’ that he (saw) said: “‘Do not ask me about evil but ask me about good’, saying it three times. He said: ‘The worst of evil is the evil scholars, and the best of good is good scholars’”

Bi’isnillah today I want to discuss the responsibility of the Muslims in general and especially the Ulema in working to solve the vital issue facing the Muslim Ummah

The problems facing the Ummah worldwide cannot be ignored, they are burning issues that must be addressed, as the Prophet (saw) emphasised in many ahadith, for example he said:

The Prophet (saw ) said: “The Believers are like one man, if his eye becomes sore then the whole (body) feels pain, and of his head is in pain then his whole (body) feels the pain.”

How much pain and suffering has the Muslim Ummah felt over the last decades? And how much did we feel? And how much did we work to put an end to this pain? How much do we address it in our khutba’s, in our bayans and in our masaajid?

We have seen all forms of problems afflict this Ummah whether economic, social, political, military, educational or cultural

We have seen the occupation of the land of Isra and Mi’raj by the Jews since 1948, we saw the massacre of the Muslims in Sabra, Shatila, Qana and Jenin – we still witness the ruthless occupation by the Israeli’s who continue to kill our innocent men, women and children in the land of Palestine.

We saw the death of over half a million children due to the sanctions placed on Iraq in the past, we even the saw birth of deformed babies due to the Uranium tipped bombs dropped by the crusaders

We saw the problem of Bosnia where over 60 thousand women were dishonoured by the Serbian Kuffar

We have seen the brutal aggression of Russia against the Muslims of Chechnya, the aggression of China against the Muslims of Xingyang province, the oppression of the tyrant of Uzbekistan against the Da’wa carriers there, the problem of East Timor of Aceh and Ambon in Indonesia, the problem of Darfur in the south of Sudan and many more.

Since September 11th we have witnessed an intensification of the war against Islam, where Islam and the Muslims have become the focus of world attention. We saw the brutal occupation of Afghanistan where the Americans and their allies dropped thousands of bombs upon the innocent people

We saw the occupation of Iraq by the new-age Mongols who dropped more bombs in this latest war against Iraq than in the first and second world war combined. We saw how they treat the Muslims like animals in Abu Ghraib prison the pictures of which were on the front pages of the newspapers world wide, we see how they have caged our brothers in Guantanomo bay even without right to a lawyer and a fair trail.

They have slaughtered over 100 thousand (one lakh) people since this invasion of Iraq according the British medical journal, the Lancet

We were crying when Babri masjid was Shaheed, how many mosques have been destroyed by the US and Britain in Iraq?

In the city of Fallujah alone, over half the mosques in Fallujjah have been destroyed – out of approximately 120 mosques, over 60 are reported to be destroyed

We should not think for one moment that these problems are not our problems, that just because we are sitting in India that these problems are only the problems of the people of Palestine, Chechnya, Iraq or Afghanistan. As Allah (swt) has made us brothers when He (swt) said: “Verily the believers are a brotherhood”

The Prophet (saw) said: “The Muslims are one Ummah, there land is one land and there is one war”

I want all of us here to ask the question to ourselves how many times have really spoken about these issues, addressed them in our bayaans, amongst our gatherings and have we been working for a true solution to these problems

If the Ka’ba was attacked tomorrow, I’m sure all of us would feel it and would be restless, we would not be able to sleep, we would be addressing it with the people, we would strive to save it with all of our efforts. But what value has Allah (swt) placed on the blood of a Muslim?

Whilst the Prophet (saw) was doing Tawaaf around the Ka’ba he said: “Maa a’zamaki” “How great you are” “Wa ma asrhafaki” “How blessed you are” “Wa ma ajmalaki” “How beautiful you are in the sight of Allah, but the blood of the Muslim is worth more than you and all your surroundings” [Ibn Majah]

If this is the value of Muslim blood then surely we must seriously work to protect it. Muslims all over the world feel the pain of these problems and discuss these issues amongst themselves.

The Muslims every where in the world look the Ulema for answers as to how we should achieve that, as they see them as the light that should show us the correct path. Therefore it is an enormous responsibility on our shoulders that we address this issue correctly

Before I address the solution to these problems facing the Ummah from the perspective of the Islamic evidences, I want mention some key points that I want all of us to think about during this event and the rest of my talk:

1) We must have it clear in our minds that the only source of legislation, of guidance of ahkam, of solutions for us are the Islamic sources namely the Quran and the Sunnah and what they have indicated such as Ijma as-Sahaba and Qiyas. The source of legislation, guidance or solutions to our problems are not the writings of an intellectual, the legislation of a parliament, the rule of a King or President, nor own emotions, our own desires, our own interests, our own benefits, our money, or our fears. This is part of our Iman when we say Laa illaha illalah Muhamadur Rasuululah. Allah (swt) says:

"The Rule is for none but Allah: He declares the truth and He is the best of Judges." [6:57]

2)Secondly we must realise that our allegiance and sincerity must be to the Haqq (truth), the Deen of Allah, not to any group, organisation, Ameer, Aalim, government or institution. We should remember the many ahadith warning us about this time:

In the Hadith in Sahih of Bukhari, on the authority of 'Urwa b. al-Zubayr who said: 'Abd Allah b. 'Amr b. al-'As overcame us with proof. I heard him say: “Allah will not deprive you of knowledge after he has given it to you, but it will be taken away through the death of the learned men (Ulema’a) with their knowledge. There will remain ignorant people who, when consulted, will give verdicts according to their opinions whereby they will mislead others and themselves go astray.” i.e. they give Fatwas according to their own opinions which are not derived from the Islamic evidences.

We must remember the order of Allah (swt):

"And do not mix the truth with the falsehood nor knowingly conceal the truth." [Al-Baqarah]

What is the solution to our problems?

In order to understand the solution to our problems, we must actually realise the nature of the problems correctly first. We cannot separate the problems from each other, as they are all interconnected to a root problem just as the symptoms of cancer are connected to the root cancer.

The root problem or cancer today is the absence of the Islamic state, the system which implements the Ahkam that Allah (swt) revealed to us. This state was called al-Khilafah by the Prophet (saw) which has also been reffered to by different names Sultanate, Imamah or Dowla Islamiyya.

The Khilafah is a general leadership of the Muslims. It is a worldly leadership to implement the Islamic Shari’a and to carry the Da’wa to the world. Therefore, it is a public leadership and not a private one. The Khalifah is the Amir (leader) of the believers who succeeds the Messenger of Allah (saw) in implementing Islam and not in conveying it, and thus, it is a worldly leadership and not a religious one. The Khalifah does not communicate a message from Allah (swt), nor has he been personally appointed by Allah (swt), rather he is appointed by the Muslims to represent them in the implementation of Islam within Dar Al-Islam (the land ruled by Islam), and in carrying the da’wa outside it.

For example the great scholar Imam al-Mawardi defined it in this way, he said: "It is to guard the affairs of the Deen, and take care of the world's affairs politics after the prophethood." [Imam Al-Mawardi, Ahkam as-Sultaniya]

Many scholars defined it in a similar manner

It was reported in the Musnad of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal that the Prophet (saw) said, "The knots of Islam will be broken one by one until everyone of them is undone. The first to be undone will be the knot of ruling and the last will be the knot of Salah"

This knot of ruling by Islam had been tied by the Prophet (saw) himself in Madina when he made the Hijra, this Islamic state had begun with the Prophet Muhammad (saws) and had lasted for over 1000 years.

After the death of the Prophet (saw) the ruling by Islam continued and the bay’ah (pledge of allegiance) was given to Abu Bakr Siddique (ra), and after him Umar al Farooque (ra), Uthman ibn Affan (ra), Imam Ali (ra), Imam Hassan (ra) and continued to have ruler after ruler until the last Khalifah in 1924 Sultan Abdul-Majeed.

Many of the rulers or Khulafah’s names may be known to us as they are famous such as Umar ibn Abdul-Aziz, Sultan Muhammad al Fatih, Suleyman al Qanuni, Sultan Abdul-Hameed 2nd and Sultan Murad.

Some of the Khulafah were better than others and some of them were even oppressive, nevertheless the system of Islam remained implemented. Even though some of the rulers misapplied some rules and were oppressive, the Prophet (saw) foretold of this and instructed the Muslims to accept them as Khulafah and obey them as long as they did not implement open Kufr (Kufr bu’ah). It is unanimously accepted by all the Sunni Ulema in history that the Khilafah existed throughout the period of the Khulafah ar-Rashideen, the Ummayids, the Abbasids, the Mamluks and the Uthmanis until the Khilafah was destroyed after the first world war.

These Khulafah ruled by Islam and did not implement Kufr Bu’ah (open Kufr) that is why we find the great scholars of Islam such as Imam Abu Hanifah, Imam Shafi, Imam Malik, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Jafar as-Sadiq and the like accepted that they were Khalif’s but accounted them. In fact the two most famous students of Abu Hanifah who recorded his Fiqh, most of us in India follow the Fiqh they recorded - Qadi Abu Yusuf and Muhammad As-Shaybani were appointed as Qadi al Quda (the chief judge) in state in the time of the Khalifah Haroon ar-Rasheed.

Some of the great scholars wrote books about the history of the Khulafah such as Imam Suyuti known as al-Jalalayn, who died in 1505 CE – he wrote the book Tarikh al Khulafah, ‘History of the Khulafah’. Imam Mawardi who died in 1058 CE who was appointed as a Qadi and later an ambassador by the Abbasid Khalid Al-Qaim bi Amr Allah wrote the famous book, ‘Al Ahkam As-Sultaniya’, about the ruling system in Islam.

Although today some of us including some of the Ulema have forgotten the meaning of Khilafah, at that time the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent including the Ulema cried out in support of the Khilafah and called against its removal. Maulana Mohammad Ali Johar said about the Khilafah:

“The ruler of Turkey was the Khalifah or successor of the Prophet and Amir -ul- Momineen or chief of the believers and the Khilafah is as essentially our religious concern as the Quran or the Sunnah of the Prophet." [Johar, Mohammed Ali, My Life a Fragment pg.41]

Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad wrote a book in 1920 called ‘The Issue of Khilafat’, he stated: “Without the Khilafah the existence of Islam is not possible, the Muslims of India with all their effort and power need to work for this.”

Sheikh ul Hind Maulana Mahmood ul-Hassan who was the head of Dar al-ulum Deoband in his time, who was imprisoned by the British in Malta for 3 years due to him sticking to the truth and not disowning the Uthmani (Ottoman) Khilafah said in his Fatwa published October 29, 1920:

“The Khalifat-ul-Muslimin (Muslim Caliph), who used to unite the entire community on this planet; who as vice-regent of Allah on this earth used to implement the universal law of Islam; who used to protect the rights and interests of Muslims and who used to preserve and ensure that the glory of the words of the Creator of this universe be preserved and implemented, has been surrounded by the enemies and made redundant.”

The Prophet (saw) said as narrated in Sahih Muslim: “Verily the Imam is a shield behind whom they (Muslims) fight and by whom they are protected”.

The Khilafah is the mechanism that Allah (swt) revealed for our protection and to solve our problems

The Fard of having a Khilafah to implement the Shariah of Allah and solve our problems is Qati (definitive) and it is established from evidences in the Quran, the Sunnah and Ijma as-Sahaba and all the scholars in history are unanimous on it. I will quote some of the evidences not all of them due to time constraints

Evidence from Quran

There are many ayat about ruling in the Quran such as:

"And rule between them by that which Allah revealed to you, and do not follow their whims, and beware that they may deviate you away from some of which Allah revealed to you." [TMQ Al-Mai’dah:49]

The speech of Allah to the Prophet (saw) is also a speech to the Prophet's Ummah (nation), unless there is an evidence which indicates this speech is limited to him. In this case there is no such evidence limiting this address to the Prophet (saw). Thus, the verses call upon Muslims to establish the rule of Allah. The appointment of a Khalif does not mean other than the establishment of the rule of Allah and the authority of Islam.

Regarding the authority, Allah ta'ala obliges the Muslims to obey those in authority, i.e. The ruler, which is an indication that the existence of the ruler is obligatory. Allah ta'ala says:

“O you who believe, obey Allah, obey the Messenger and those in authority amongst you” [An-Nisa: 50]

Furthermore many ayat about establishing the Salah, the Hudud, etc is an address to the Ummah – we are sinful if there is no system to enforce these.

Imam Tahawi also narrates a Hadith from Muslim ibn Yasar that the Prophet (saw) said, “The (collection of the) Zakah, the (implementation of the) Hudood the (distribution of the) spoils and the (appointment of the) Jumu.ah are for the Sultan..” (A similar narration has been narrated by Ibn Abi Shaybah in his Musanaf and also by Imam Narghiyani. They have been deemed acceptable.)

Hence the obligation of establishing the Khilafah is the obligation upon which many other obligations rest, such as the Hudood (penal codes), collection and distribution of the Zakah, the organising of the main Jumu.ah and it.s Khateeb and other obligations besides these. The removal of Kufr depends upon the resumption of the Khilafah. Establishing Islam in actuality means the establishment of the Khilafah as that is the only method of implementing Islam. Indeed, without the Khilafah the Deen cannot exist in our societies. Hence the whole of Islam depends upon the Khilafah as that is the method that Islam defined to bring it into existence. The current situation of the Islamic Ummah is a testament to this fact. The Islamic penal code is absent and is replaced with that of the European countries. The economic system of Islam has been replaced by that of the Capitalists and today the resources of the Muslim Ummah are the spoils that are distributed by the Kuffar. The Islamic lands are occupied despite the military capacities of the Muslim armies. The absence of the Islamic way of life in our countries is ever affecting the societal fabric with nightclubs and bars arising in the holy lands of al-Quds, as well as many other major cities and capitals in the Islamic world. These stark facts unfortunately clearly illustrate the absence of Islam and the truthfulness of the statements of the Messenger of Allah (saw).

Allah orders us to protect those who are attacked for their Deen – so when Muslims are attacked in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine or anywhere – we are sinful if we are not working to establish the system to protect them.

Evidence from the Sunnah

Many evidences indicating the Fard of having a Khalifah, even specific texts establishing that it is Fard Ayn to have bay’ah on the neck:

Muslim narrated from Ibn ‘Umar that the Prophet (saw) said: “Whosoever dies whilst there was no bay‘ah (allegiance or a pledge) on his neck (to a Khaleefah), he dies a death of jahilliyah.”

To understand this Hadith and the meaning of no Bay’ah on the neck becomes clear when we look at the following Hadith:

The Prophet (saw) said: “The One who dies without an Imam he dies the death of Jahiliyyah”. [Reported on the authority of ‘Umar by at-Tabarani and Abu Nu’aym. The latter declared the hadith as authentic] The Imam in the text means the Khalifah.

Is an obligation more important than the life of the Prophet (Saw):

He (saw) stated to his uncle concerning the Mushrikeen, “ Allah, if they were to put the sun in my right hand and the moon in my left, on condition that I relinquish this matter, I would not relinquish it until Allah has made it dominant or I perish therein..” (Tareekh ut-Tabari by al-Tabari Vol. 6 par. 1179).

Ijma as-Sahaba

After the death of the Prophet (saw) – they did not bury him for 2 days.

Imam al-Haythami said, "It is known that the Sahabah (r.a.h) consented that selecting the Imaam after the end of the era of Prophethood was an obligation (Wajib). Indeed they made it (more) important than the (other) obligations whilst they were busy with it over the burial of the Prophet (saw)". (al-Haythami in Sawaa'iq ul-haraqah:17.)

When Umar was on his deathbed: He said to them: "You have this group whom, when the Messenger of Allah (saw) died, he was pleased with them, and he said about them: They are the people of paradise: Ali b. Talib, Uthman b. Affan, Sa’ad b. Abi Waqqas, Abdur Rahman ibn Awf, Az- Zubayr b. Al Awwam, and Talha b. Ubaydullah. Let Abdullah ibn Umar be with them, but let him have only an opinion without having anything in the matter of Khilafah." Umar advised these six people to select a Khaleefah, and appointed to them a three day time limit. After a long talk with them he said: "When I die, consult for three days, and let Suhaib (in these days) lead the Muslims in prayer. Do not let the fourth day come without having an Ameer upon you." He also appointed Abu Talha Al-Ansari to protect the gathering and to encourage them in their task, and he said to him: "O Abu Talha, Allah (swt) has helped Islam by you (i.e. the Ansar) so select fifty men from the Ansar, and urge these (six) people to select one from amongst them." He asked Al-Muqdad ibn Al-Aswad to select the place of the meeting and said to him : "After you put me in my grave, gather these (six) people in a house till they select one man from themselves." Then he asked Suhaib to monitor the meeting and said to him: "Lead the people in prayer three days, and let Ali, Uthman, Az-Zubayr, Sa’ad, Abdul Rahman b. Awf, and Talha, if he came back (from his travel) and bring in Abdullah b. Umar, without allowing him any personal interest in the matter, and stand at their heads (i.e. supervise them). If five agreed and accepted one man, while one man rejected, then hit his head with the sword. If four consented and agreed on one man, and two disagreed, then kill the dissenters with the sword. If three agreed on one man and three disagreed then let Abdullah bin Umar arbitrate. The group which Abdullah b. Umar judged for, let them select one from them. If they did not accept the judgement of Abdullah b. Umar, then be (all of you) with the group in which is Abdul Rahman b. Awf, and kill the rest if they declined to accept what the people agreed upon." Then he asked them to leave the discussion about the Khilafah until he died.

Imam an-Nawawi (rh.a.) said, "(The scholars) had Ijma (consensus) that it is an obligation upon the Muslims to select a Khaleefah". (Sharhu Sahih Muslim page 205 vol 12)

All the Sahaba consented – even though he ordered killing = 3 days 2 nights as a clear time limit – today has been 81 years, we are all sinful until it is established

Appointing the Khalifah in origin Fard Kifaya but becomes Fard Ayn if not established, e.g. Janaza, replying to salam, etc.

Therefore it is Fard Ayn for all the Muslims to work to re-establish this obligation

The Ulema must stand for the truth like Ulema in the past

Today we as Ulema must stand for the issue of Khilafah and create a public opinion for this, utilising all our abilities and influence

We must address the vital issues facing the Ummah and work to build a comprehensive understanding of Islam as the a complete ideology with all the solutions to lifes problems

In this time when the Kuffar especially the West are continuously bombarding the Muslims with their Kufr culture, they are calling for the separation of the Deen from the Dunya, they call for a reformation of Islam, a modernisation of Islam and they use their agents, money and power to spread their corruption every where

The Ulema must respond to this and be the ones who defend Islam, who refute the Kufr concepts such as Democracy, Freedom, Secularism, Nationalism and Socialism which have become the new gods which people worship today instead of Laat, Manaat and Uzza

How can we remain silent in the face of all the Munkar around us? How come most of the Masajid do not address the real issues facing the Ummah and refute the ideas being propagated by the West?

We should be careful today not to fall into those Ulema who have sold the Deen for worldly goods, who are afraid to speak the truth or those who even spread corruption in the name of Islam. Let us take a warning from the words of the Prophet (saw) who said:

Al-Tabarani in Al-Kabeer wal-Bazaar, by the Istinad of the men of Sahih that 'Awf b. Malik al-Ashja'i narrated that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “My Ummah will become divided into some seventy sects, the greatest will be the test of the people who make analogy to the deen with their own opinions, with it forbidding what Allah has permitted and permitting what Allah has forbidden.”

Unfortunately we see this today, people permitting Democracy, Nationalism – like some of the Ulema of Saudi Arabia who permitted the Americans to come onto Islamic land to launch war on the Muslims of Iraq, the Sheikh of al-Azhar who has justified Riba and many more.

Let us look at the example of the Ulema in the past who did not fear anyone except Allah (swt).

Let us consider the example of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (ra), master of hadith, Mujtahid of Makkah and the man to which the Hanbali Madhab is attributed. In his time, Mamoon, who became Khalifah, had adopted the Mu’tazilah belief that man created the Qur’an. Mamoon attempted to force this belief upon the masses - this created trouble with the Ulema, as they were the ones who had the leadership over the Ummah. Amongst the Ulema was Imam Ahmad, who refused to accept this corrupt doctrine. His uncle asked him to say with his tongue what he did not accept in his heart, to which he responded, “If the Alim stays silent in the face of falsehood when will the truth become manifest?” Imam Ahmad preferred prison to corrupting an aspect of the Islamic Aqeedah. He was prepared to suffer, as Yusuf (as) did, who preferred prison to the fitnah that he was faced with.

Imam Ahmad understood the Hadith that has been declared Sahih by Imam Suyuti, “The one who pleases the Sultan (authority) with that which angers Allah leaves the Deen of Allah.”

Let us remember the example of Imam Abu Hanifah (ra), Imam of Ahlur Rayee, the Mujtahid and Faqih of Kufa and founder of the Hanafi Madhab. He was known for his acute legal mind as a jurist. Imam Abu Hanifah (ra) was summoned to the court of Mansoor, who was Khalifah at the time, and was asked to take the position of Qadi ul Qadaa (or chief justice). He refused, as he did not view the Khalifah as the most just of characters. He replied, “I am not fit for this position!” Mansoor became angry, shouting, “You lie! You are fit!” Abu Hanifah responded, “If I am lying them I am not fit for the post, if I am not then I tell the truth I am not fit for the post!” As a result he was imprisoned and lashed. Abu Hanifah (ra) exemplified how we must wash our hands from tyranny regardless of benefit.

We should realise that even today they are many Ulema who stand up for the truth without fear and are working with all their efforts for the return of the Khilafah

We all know the examples of the Shaheed Syed Qutb and Hassan al-Banna, how they were martyred for standing up for the truth. We also know the example of many Ulema of the subcontinent and how they faced imprisonment by the British such as Sheikh ul-Hind whom we mentioned before and Sheikh ul-Islam Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani. They are many other examples today - look to the prisons of Uzbekistan where thousands of Da'wa carriers including Ulema have been imprisoned for working for Khilafah.

Another example is Sheikh Abdul-Aziz Badri, the author of the excellent book 'Islam baynal Ulema wal hukkam' (Islam - between the Ulema and the Rulers) which is also available in Urdu, was imprisoned in Iraq in the past for working for the Khilafah. In his book he details the lives of various Ulema ranging from Abu Hanifa, al-Izzadin Abdul-Salam, Ibn Taymiyya to Sheikh Ahmad Sirhindi and how they stood up for the truth even in the face of hardship.

To conclude:

1) It is Fard Ayn upon all of us to work with all our efforts to change the Munkar and re-establish the Khilafah.
2) To oppose this work is to oppose the Shariah of Allah, we should not oppose it even if we differ in detailed issues and have some difference of opinion. Rather we should stand against those who oppose it
3) We must support this work with all of our abilities, this means each of us must think about how we can practically contribute to this work and engage in that. We need generate a Khilafat movement like the Ulema of all different backgrounds did in the past.
4) We should not loose hope or become defeated even if they are obstacles around us and even if people don’t initially support this call – because Allah (swt) and the Prophet (saw) has already informed us that the Khilafah will return, the Prophet (saw) said “Then they will return the Khilafah on the path of the Prophethood” [Musnad Ahmad]

May Allah (swt) enable us all to stand up for the truth and work to re-establish his Deen upon the earth!

Saturday, March 11, 2006

The Muslim woman – East, West or Islam?

The following is a transcript of a talk.

Allah (swt) says: “I have not created jinn and humankind except to worship me” [TMQ 51:57]

We all know that our objective in life as Muslims is to worship Allah (swt), this means that we must follow the commands and prohibitions of Allah in all the aspects of life whether in the Masjid, home, market, hospital or school.

Many of us may be aware of this objective in general, however unfortunately when it comes to the role of the Muslim woman our roles and responsibilities we find that there is much confusion.

Today the Muslim women are being pulled between two cultures, the Western culture which many of the youth are being attracted to and the Eastern culture which a lot of the elder generation are influenced by. Often people have a confusion between the Eastern cultural view of a woman and her role and the Islamic view of women, they mix these together and see them as one.

People unfortunately don’t realise that there is a third option and true alternative – Islam and its view of the woman and her role

The Western culture promotes freedom, liberation of the woman and so-called equality – that a woman can be like a man and do whatever a man can do, that she should not be restricted by her parents, family or even religion. This view seems appealing to some, especially the youth as the media continuously spreading these ideas

For example:
· If we look at Sania Mirza, she is portrayed in the media as a successful Muslim woman, so some of our daughters may look at her as a role model
· Also if we look to the famous bollywood stars they are also seen as role models to some
· Especially amongst the youth the issue of fashion, looking good when going out of the house, especially at weddings – so it is common to see on the streets of Muslim women who are not covered according to the Islamic rules of wearing the Khimar (headscarf) and the Jilbab (outer garment).
· The issue of boyfriend and girlfriend relationships is also penetrating the Muslim community, where our daughters even hide from their parents their relationships with boys

On the other hand we see people especially some from the elder generation affected by the Eastern culture. For example:

· According to the Eastern culture, women are slaves to their husbands and exist to fulfil their needs – this becomes their objective in life
· The concept of arranged marriage where the family chooses someone for the girl without her consent or sometimes without even seeing the man before marriage
· Tribalism and nationalism is deeply rooted where even amongst the Muslims people only give their daughter in marriage to a certain tribe or family which is similar to them – so the Siddiqi’s may only marry other Siddiqi’s, Sayyid’s, Choudry’s, etc. This is very common.
· The Eastern concept of modesty and dress does not emanate from Islam, so women may be wearing Salwar Kameez, Saari’s with a dupatta when they go out and they think they are dressing properly even though in the eyes of Allah they are naked if they are showing their hair, necks and other parts of their body in front of non-mahram men.
· Backbiting (Gheebat) is common where people talk negatively about other Muslims

As a result of these different views it is common to see arguments in households between mothers and daughters on a variety of issues such as dress code, modesty and marriage.

However we need to realise that the solution to our problems does not lie in the sick Western culture where the women is seen as a commodity, where the charms of women are used to sell everything from ice creams to cars, where fornication (Zina) and adultery are commonplace where they think they have equality but in reality they are slaves to the lusts of men.

Nor does the solution lie in the disgusting Eastern culture which comes from the idol worshipping religions who worship animals and even deny the oneness of Allah, who follow their forefathers blindly as the Quraysh at the time of the Prophet (saw) did without thinking whether it is right or wrong.

We need to think - who can define the role and responsibilities of women correctly, the one who created men and women or limited human beings?

Have we ever really questioned what our role should be or do we simply just imitate and follow what we see people around us doing?

Since Allah (swt) created the male and the female and He knows best the situation of the man and the woman, then we must limit ourselves to the rules which He (swt) has legislated and not overstep them. This applies to whether these rules are intended solely for the men or exclusively for the women or whether they are for humans irrespective of their being men or women, because He (swt) knows best what is suitable for the human.

Both the Western and Eastern view of the woman are wrong as they don’t come from Allah (swt), the creator of the Universe. The source of guidance for us is the Quran and Sunnah, not tradition, not what the media says, not what our parents say, not what the community says, not what the government says. So let us understand what Islam says about women, obviously in this short talk I cannot go into all the details, however I want to address some key points:

a) The primary role of the woman: The Shari’ah has made the woman a mother and a housewife. It addressed her with rules relating to pregnancy, childbirth, to suckling, custodianship and to the waiting period (‘Idda). These rules are specified to women and not to men. Allah (swt) obliged men to earn income for himself and his family and he did not oblige this on women. Both men and women are equal in the sight of Allah, however they are different and have different roles and responsibilities according to the Shariah.

According to Islam the primary role of the woman is that she is a mother and housewife because it is through this action the human race survives and because she is distinguished by this from the men. However, the woman’s primary role as mother and housewife does not mean she is confined to this role and prevented from pursuing other activities.

So we as women must link our actions to what the Shariah has said and not just to engage in them because that’s what people do in society. So when we breastfeed our children, we should know that will be rewarded by Allah (swt) for that.

When we look after our husbands, we don’t just do it due to public opinion or because of what the community thinks, rather we do it to please Allah (swt).

One woman said to the Prophet(saw) ‘O Rasulallah, you brought tidings to men but not to women’. He said, “Does it not please any of you that if she is pregnant by her husband and he is satisfied with her that she receives the reward of one who fasts and prays for the sake of Allah? And when the labour pains come none in heaven or earth knows what is concealed in her womb to soothe her. And when she delivers, not a mouthful of milk flows from her and not an instance of child’s suck that she receives for every mouthful and for every suck, the reward of one good deed. And if she is kept awake by the child at night, she receives the reward of one who frees 70 slaves for the sake of Allah” [Tabarani]

Some rules may be specific to men like praying Jumm’uah (Friday) Salah, some may be specific to women such as the exemption from Salah during period (menstruation).

However there are many shariah rules that are applicable to both men and women such as the obligation of Salah, fasting, working for Khilafah, seeking knowledge, prohibition of backbiting, riba (usury) etc.

b) Women are not slaves: Contrary to how the media portrays it, in Islam the man is the guardian of the woman and not the master as is in Eastern culture. Allah (swt) said:

“Men are the guardians of women” [TMQ An-Nisa: 34]

Unlike in Eastern culture, in Islam the aim of marriage is for the man and women to gain tranquillity by having companionship with each other. Although the man is the guardian of the women, she is not his slave. Allah (swt) has given rights to the man and the woman and they should cooperate in helping each other achieving these. The best of examples, the Prophet (saw) used to come back from Jihad and help his wife with the housework. The wives of the Prophet (saw) used to discuss with him and even debate with him, he used to treat them with respect and honour, he used to be kind and gentle with them and used to show compassion, love and mercy.

c) Tribalism and nationalism completely contradict Islam and we should never use them as a basis for marriage.

The Prophet gave his cousin Zaynab bin Jahsh (ra), who was from the exalted people of the Quraish, in marriage to Zayd bin Haritha (ra) who used to be a slave and was freed. We should look for Taqwa (piety) more than anything else.

d) Muslim women can participate in society: If we look to the Sahabiyat they participated in society, it is allowed for Muslim women to work, to be doctors, nurses, engineers, teachers, etc of course with the permission of their guardians. For example Khadija (ra), the first wife of the Prophet (saw) was a businesswomen, Aisha (ra) was a scholar of Islam – many of the Sahaba used to come and ask her questions about the Deen, Shifaa bint Abdullah (ra) was a doctor at the time of the Prophet (saw) – she was literate and he (saw) even asked her to teach one of his wives to read and write, she was appointed as a Qadi (judge) of the marketplace during the Khilafah of Umar (ra).

Today it is good for Muslim women to be successful in different fields without compromising their Islam

e) The importance of da’wa: This is a neglected obligation, the obligation to work to resume to the Islamic way of life and re-establish the Khilafah is a Fard on both men and women without distinction. The evidences to work for change are general upon both men and women, for example the Prophet (saw) said:

“Whosoever sees a munkar (evil) must change it with their hand, if they cannot then with their tongue and if they cannot then they must hate it in their heart and that is the weakest of Iman.”

The Prophet (saw) said “whoever” meaning whether male or female

Today we must be active in spreading the message of Islam within our communities, to raise the awareness of our sisters about the Deen. Many are even unaware that Islam has solutions for all problems including how to raise our children and how to solve the problem of Iraq, how to treat our husbands and how to liberate Palestine for the Israeli occupation, how to deal with our parents and how to eliminate poverty in the world.

There are two things we must be engaged in:

1) Seeking knowledge: How can we engage in Da’wa without having knowledge, of course seeking knowledge is an obligation. We must continuously seek knowledge by reading, thinking and asking questions about the Deen. We should be thinking women like the Sahabiyat and women of the past. We should be aware about the problems of the Ummah and not just consumed in our own family problems where we think more about whether the roti gets burnt rather than thinking about our children being burnt by the bombs of the Kuffar in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and other lands. We are consumed in thinking about what clothes we are going to wear on some wedding or on Eid rather than thinking about how to solve the problem of the Muslims in our lands who have no clothes due to the poverty created by our corrupt rulers who are agents of the West.

2) Giving Da’wa: The Prophet (saw) said: “Even if you know one ayah (verse) propagate it”.

We as Muslim women are in a good position to help create the atmosphere of Da’wa within our families and communities. So when we meet other women instead of only talking about petty things like what we have cooked, or what has been happening in the dramas on Zee TV, what new films are out, etc – we should discuss issues of the Deen. We should learn knowledge from each other and help each other in this.

Some of you may feel that it is difficult to be engaged in Da’wa due to household responsibilities and time constraints. However we must think practically of how to instil Da’wa into our normal lives, day to day we meet many people and interact with our families, we must ensure that we instil the correct Islamic culture within our children and not allow them to be brought up by the Kufr society.

The Sahabiyat were da’wa carriers we should look at their examples. They were also mothers, wives and daughters, but they were also Da’wa carriers.

Summayah (ra) was the first martyr of Islam who was struggling with the rest of the Sahaba to establish the Deen of Allah (swt), she was tortured to death by Abu Jahl, but she never gave in. The sister of Umar ibn al-Khattab did not turn away from the Deen and gave Da’wa to Umar even though he beat her very badly. Asma bint Abu Bakr (ra) continued to be a da’wa carrier even until she was an old woman when she spoke out against an oppressive leader Hajjaj ibn Yusuf. Women like A’isha (ra) had a remarkable memory and reported over 2000 ahadith. She had a deep understanding of tafseer, hadith and fiqh. At the age of 18 people came from all over Arabia to ask her questions about the deen because she was one of the most knowledgeable scholars.

Umm Amarah (ra) even participated in Jihad, she was a skilled fighter and fought in many battle, most famously in the Battle of Uhud where she protected the Prophet (saw) with her own body, not caring about herself. The Prophet (saw) is reported to say that wherever he turned, whether to his left or right, he saw Umm Amarah (ra) fighting to defend him.

May Allah (swt) give us the strength to carry this da’wa like the Sahabiyat in the past!

Shifaa bint Mukhlis Miah

Thursday, March 09, 2006

The visit of Bush, attack on Sammara & 3rd March

The following is the transcript of a talk delivered on this subject:

“When it is said to them do not make mischief on the earth, they say ‘we are only peace makers’” [TMQ al-Baqara: 11]

Recently we have seen the visit of the modern day Firawn to India. This verse describes the reality of him and America very well. Under the guise of peace and security he goes every where in the world – where in reality they create the fitna and corruption every where. As Allah (swt) said about Firawn:

“Firawn was an arrogant tyrant on the earth indeed he was one of the Musrifeen (transgressors)” [TMQ 10:83]

We know some of the reasons for Bush’s visit to India was to guarantee Nuclear co-operation for Nuclear energy with India – as we know India faces a massive energy problem as doesn’t have much oil, gas or energy. India was going to build a pipeline from Iran for gas, there are factions in India that wanted to oppose referring Iran to the UN.

Of course America doesn’t want this, even though Iran does not rule by Islam, it wants to pressurize Iran, even directly intervene in it – to remove any type of Islamists and to make sure it has direct control of the region – to ensure that it doesn't develop nuclear weapons in case it were to fall into the hands of the Islamic Khilafah state when it returns.

America acts according to its own interests, it also wants to open up the Indian economy through privitisation for its own companies to dominate the markets. They use the issue of ‘Free Trade’ to achieve this, even though the US is the most protectionist of economies.

India is the world's fasted growing economy, and predicted to soon be the world's most populous country. It has escalating energy needs, and an insatiable desire for consumer goods. More electricity, to more people means more I-pods and X-boxes to sell them. America's assistance in getting power into India, be it nuclear or non-nuclear, will benefit none save America in the long run. US-India economic ties are growing rapidly. In 2005, US exports to India rose by 30%, compared with 20% growth in Indian exports to the US. Bilateral merchandise trade amounted to nearly $27 billion. Currently this is seen by officials as way below the potential of the two economies. India needs electricity to drive its silicon plateau. Presently it only has 14 reactors in commercial operation and nine under construction. Nuclear power supplies about 3% of India's electricity. By 2050, nuclear power is expected to provide 25% of the country's electricity. India has limited coal and uranium reserves. Its huge thorium reserves - about 25% of the world's total - are expected to fuel this proposed nuclear power programme.

America like the Shaytan uses deception and deceptive styles every where. For example the recent attack on Sammarra in Iraq which a sanctuary for the Shia Muslims. We must understand clearly that this attack like most of the other attacks against Muslims in Iraq are not done by Muslims – rather are done by the colonialist occupier to blame on the Muslims and fragment them

The occupation forces in Iraq are in trouble, they are almost drowning in their defeat and the killing of their soldiers. Each time they fall in a crisis, they commit one crime here and another there after they prepare the scene of the crime so that it seems that the Sunnis are behind what happens to the Shiites and the Shiites behind what happens to the Sunnis. In this way, they create problems between the 2 sides and they stay on the safe side watching what’s happening from far away. It is no coincidence that the crime of Samarra’ took place after the declaration of the American ambassador about sectarianism in the ministry of defence and of interior affairs.

Anyone who examines the explosion of the sanctuary of the two imams in Samarra’ would see clearly that this explosion was not executed by normal people but via machines that belong to professional countries because the destruction caused by the explosion indicates that the explosions were fabricated in a technical way both in quantity and quality. In addition to that, they were placed in a place that wouldn’t miss the target. Not to mention that the sanctuary isn’t a normal place but one that is frequented and that is highly guarded, so how was it possible to execute the explosion so well and then withdrawing safely unless some responsible strong apparatus supervised the country?

What happened in Samarra’ is due to the planning and execution of occupation forces and it’s a tragedy, but what is worse and more terrible is that occupation forces were able to attain their goal which is creating riots between Sunnites and Shiites. After this crime, rumours went on and some kidnapping and killing took place among the Sunnites scholars and their mosques were attacked, also it was heard that some prisoners and journalists were killed, all this pleased occupation forces and especially America because it serves their interest to cause chaos in the country.

Neither America nor Britain cares about the well being of any Muslim, and we believe that they were behind the explosion of the sanctuary and also they might be involved in other attacks so that they will make it appear that all this is the result of the fighting between different doctrines in Islam. We must be aware of certain facts:

First: Occupation forces and especially America are behind the killings of civilians, explosions in markets and mosques, kidnapping scholars and killing those who are loyal to their religion and Ummah. A Muslim is he who resists occupation and doesn’t harm his people, market and mosque because it is greater for Allah to kill a Muslim without a reason than to destroy the Kaaba and the vanishing of life. Moreover, a Muslim while fighting with his enemy doesn’t kill an old man or a baby or a woman, and doesn’t destroy a place of worship or a person who is praying. Rasulullah (saw) said:

«لَزَوَالُ الدُّنْيَا أَهْوَنُ عَلَى اللَّهِ مِنْ قَتْلِ مُؤْمِنٍ بِغَيْرِ حَقٍّ»
“The vanishing of life is easier on Allah than killing believer without a reason.” (Narrated by Ibn Majah). Also He (saw) says:

«انْطَلِقُوا بِاسْمِ اللَّهِ وَبِاللَّهِ وَعَلَى مِلَّةِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ وَلاَ تَقْتُلُوا شَيْخًا فَانِيًا وَلاَ طِفْلاً وَلاَ صَغِيرًا وَلاَ امْرَأَةً وَلاَ تَغُلُّوا وَضُمُّوا غَنَائِمَكُمْ وَأَصْلِحُوا وَأَحْسِنُوا إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُحْسِنِينَ»
“Go on in the name of Allah and following the example of Rasulullah and don’t kill an old man or a baby or a child or a woman. Collect your gain and be good because Allah likes people who do good deeds” (Narrated by Abu Dawoud)

Second: Muslims, even if they disagree on the issue of the Imammet, do not disagree on their love for Rasulullah nor in their love for all pure Muslims, this is one of the highest degrees for all Muslims. Any Muslim who considers Rasulullah and Muslims as enemies will be severely punished in the judgment day when no son and no money will do him any good and all those with a clean heart will survive. In addition, Muslims do not say to another Muslim that he is Kafer; this is a big issue for Allah, his Rasul and all Muslims. Rasulullah (saw) says:

«لاَ يُؤْمِنُ أَحَدُكُمْ حَتَّى أَكُونَ أَحَبَّ إِلَيْهِ مِنْ وَالِدِهِ وَوَلَدِهِ وَالنَّاسِ أَجْمَعِينَ»
“No one of you becomes a true believer unless I become dearer to him than his father, his son and all people.” Narrated by Bukhari. He (saw) also says:

«مَنْ كَفَّرَ أَخَاهُ فَقَدْ بَاءَ بِهَا أَحَدُهُمَا»
“If any of you tells another Muslim that he is a Kafer, then one of you is Kafer.” (Narrated by Ahmad)

Third: the resentment of the occupiers colonist Kuffars, especially America and Britain, towards Muslims and Islam and their conspiracies against them is well known and they say it clearly in their declarations, and their acts prove this like what happened in Abu Ghreib, Guantenamo and Jangi fort, and what is hidden inside of them is still worse. Their evil deeds don’t differentiate between a Muslim and another, whatever his doctrine was and wherever he lived.

((كَيْفَ وَإِنْ يَظْهَرُوا عَلَيْكُمْ لاَ يَرْقُبُوا فِيكُمْ إِلاًّ وَلاَ ذِمَّةً))
"How (can there be such a covenant), seeing that if they get an advantage over you, they respect not in you the ties either of kinship or of covenant." [Al-Tawbah: 8]

O Muslims, these 3 facts should make you look towards occupation forces and their agents whenever a crime takes place in your markets or mosques or when one of your scholars is killed or kidnapped, because it’s them who are behind the crime while you ignore occupation forces and look towards each other and by doing so you do a big favor to the occupation forces and encourage them to go on with their plots.

((وَالْفِتْنَةُ أَشَدُّ مِنَ الْقَتْلِ))
"Oppression are worse than slaughter." [Baqarah: 191]

We should not to allow them to create turmoil between us which might lead to a civil war which will make Allah, his Rasul and all Muslims angry. The tragedy of Samarra’ motivate Mulims of Iraq to consider the occupier as an enemy.

"And those who disbelieve are allies of one another. (and) if you (muslims of the whole world collectively) do not do so there will be fitnah and oppression on the earth" [al-Anfal: 73]

In Tafsir-at-Tabari vol. 10 page 56: “That if you do not do what Allah has ordered you to do [i.e. all the Muslims of the world] do not become allies as a united block to make Allah’s Deen victorious, there will be a great Fitnah. And it is Fitnah to have many Khulafah, as it is mentioned in Sahih Muslim by Arfajah : "Whoso comes to you while your affairs has been united under one man, intending to break your strength or dissolve your unity, kill him."

There is also another narration in Sahih Muslim by Abu Sa'id al-Khudri who said that the Prophet (saw) said: "When the oath of allegiance has been taken for two Khalifs, kill the latter of them".

So it is a legal obligation (fard), from the above mentioned proofs, that there shall not be more than one Khalifah for the whole Muslim world or otherwise there will be a great Fitnah amongst the Muslims, the ultimate results of which will not be worthy of praise.

It was reported in the Musnad of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal that the Prophet (saw) said, "The knots of Islam will be broken one by one until everyone of them is undone. The first to be undone will be the knot of ruling and the last will be the knot of Salah"

Yesterday was 3rd March, the anniversary of destruction of Khilafah which occurred in 1924

The European powers endured the consequences of this hadith. The Khilafah ably protected the Islamic Lands from the designs of the kuffar. These designs remained unfulfilled for centuries. Disraeli and Bismarck conferred in Berlin (1887) to divide the Islamic Lands. Plans reiterated in the Sykes-Picot (British-French) secret agreement of 1916. They had already occupied many of the Islamic Lands. However, they still harboured the same fears that filled the hearts of the original Crusaders. They succeeded in occupying Islamic Lands, although it was short-lived. Within years, they were completely routed as Khaleefah Nur-ud-Deen launched a jihad against them. The defeat of the Crusaders showed that while the Khilafah existed, the latent power within the Muslims could always be unleashed.

Therefore, Britain demanded that Muslims abolish the Khilafah at the Lausanne conference (20th November 1922 to 4th February 1923). Also previously, in 1915 the Russian ambassador to Britain, sent a message back to St Petersburg: "The Italian Government supports the Russian Government's opinion. The Italian government wholeheartedly supports wresting the Khilafah from the Turks and abolishing it if necessary". Their ground work was laid long before when the Europeans sponsored missionary activity within the Khilafah. Missionary centres sprang up around, and even within, the borders of the decaying Islamic State such as those in Malta (end of 16th Century), ash-Sham (1725) and Beirut (1820). Their objective was not to convert Muslims to Christianity, this idea was as ludicrous as it was unlikely. Rather it was to dupe Muslims into adopting Islam as the Europeans had adopted Christianity. Specifically, they wished that Muslims followed their example, by having a secular Reformation. That is that the Muslims would separate the deen from the State. They formed many associations and parties for this purpose. Through this and other means, they recruited Muslims to their secular crusade. Now all that remained was the implementation of the secular vision. Time proved that this was not to be an easy task.

By the early 1920’s the ‘Union and Progress’ and the ‘Young Turks’ manoeuvred towards implementation of secularism. Their boldest initiative was a proposal for a secular constitution, presented to the National Assembly. This evoked an angry response. Kathim Qara Bakir, the ‘Uthmani Khilafah General , said, "I have vowed to prevent any steps undertaken with the aim of transforming the country from a Sultanate to a republic, no matter how dear the sacrifice were." A leading secularist, Mustafa Kemal retorted, "The constitution drafted by the National Assembly is not final...There is nothing in these laws to suggest that the sacred Sultanate and the sacred Khilafah would be undermined, or to suggest an incitement towards adopting a republican ruling system. Those who imagine that we wish to destroy the Sultanate and substitute the Sultanic rule by the republican rule are in fact living in another planet than the one we live in, that is the planet of fiction and imagination." History has shown how empty these words were. Their ensuing actions showed that they wished to bring this planet from the realm of fiction and imagination, into bitter reality. The real motive for this apparent climb-down was that they realised Bakir was well respected for his sound reasoning by the Ummah. His views represented the view of the Ummah of the time. Indeed, the Ummah was aware that Islam dealt with all life's affairs, including that of the government. They held no concept of a secular government i.e. a government that looked outside of Islam for its form and detail.

This was all but spelled out to the secularists when they later showed their true colours. In the midst of debate in the National Assembly, Kemal suggested the separation between the Sultanate and the Khilafah, thus abolishing the Sultanate and removing the Khaleefah, Wahid-ud-Deen. A foreign affairs committee was called upon to examine this matter the following day. It included in its ranks Islamic scholars. The committee spent hours studying the issue of separating the Sultanate from the Khilafah. The committee rejected the proposal unanimously, citing texts from the Qur’an and the Sunnah forbidding a secular government.

The secularists were up against the word of Allah (swt), and an Ummah that held them sacred. Thus a conflict between the Ummah and the secularists ensued. The following quotes and events demonstrate the intensity of that conflict. One can clearly see that the Ummah of the time proved to be a worthy example, for the present generation of Muslims that face secular rule in the Islamic Lands.

November 1922. "The Sultanate must be separated from the Khilafah and abolished. This will happen whether you agree to it or not. All there is to it is that some of your heads will roll in the process." Mustafa Kemal’s response to hearing the rejection by the foreign affairs committee. The National Assembly rejected the proposal, despite the fact that Mustafa Kemal’s supporters rested their hands on pistols. Yet, the speaker announced that the Assembly had endorsed the proposal by a general consensus. Upon this a number of deputies jumped on top of their seats protesting and shouting, "This is not true, we did not agree to this.’ Kemal dissolved the National Assembly and hold fresh elections, hoping to acquire a majority. However, this new Assembly was also against secularism.

29th October 1923. Mustafa Kemal addressed the National Assembly, "...I have decided that Turkey should become a republic with an elected president." When the voting took place, fewer than 40% of the deputies took part. However, the decree had been prepared beforehand by the secularists. It declared that there was approval for the formation of a secular Turkish Republic, with Kemal as its first President. The masses turned against the secular proposals. The word was spread everywhere that the new rulers of Ankara were kuffaar. Many prominent orators started to attack Mustafa Kemal. Leaflets and caricatures which attacked him fiercely were distributed. Many of the deputies and prominent figures left Ankara and headed towards Istanbul, to rally around the Khaleefah Abdul-Majid. Kemal then gauged opinion amongst the army. He attended the annual military manoeuvres near Izmir and spent days reviewing the situation, with Fawzi and Ismat, probing the low ranking officers and soldiers. He found a strong opposition to secularism. Secularists resorted to brutality. The National Assembly endorsed a bill declaring that any opposition to the republic and any inclination towards the deposed Sultan, would be considered an act of treason, punishable by death. Kemal ordered the assassination of one of the staunchest critiques of secularism, as he was returning from the National Assembly. When yet another deputy delivered a speech in support of the Khaleefah, Kemal threatened him with hanging.

1st March 1924. The Greater National Assembly convened. Mustafa Kemal demanded the abolition of the Khilafah. Again there was fierce opposition.

2nd March 1924. The National Assembly convened once more in order to review this decree; the session went on all night until 6.30 a.m. Again nothing was resolved.

3rd March 1924. In spite of the opposition from the Assembly and the Ummah, the abolition of the Khilafah was announced, and with it the separation of the deen from the state.

The Prophet (saw) said, "Your enemies will eat of you as guests eat at a dinner."

With the Khilafah destroyed, indeed the enemies feasted without any fear of reprisal. As now Britain’s condition was fulfilled, Lausanne was reconvened on 23rd April 1924. The Lausanne Treaty was signed on 24th July 1924. The British Foreign Secretary, Curzon announced in the House of Commons, "The point at issue is that Turkey has been destroyed and shall never rise again, because we have destroyed her spiritual power: the Khilafah and Islam."

The foreign powers continued dividing up the Islamic Lands according to the Sykes-Picot agreement and the Berlin Conference. Unlike the Crusaders of the past, these modern day secular crusaders had no Khilafah to confront them. Within years of the Khilafah’s abolition, they were able to extend their colonial hegemony over the resources of the Islamic Lands. Within decades, Britain was able to extend their support of the Zionists, culminating in the formation of Israel (May, 1948). To this day the Islamic Lands are divided and fall under the shadow of secular rule.

Imam Tahawi also narrates a Hadith from Muslim ibn Yasar that the Prophet (saw) said, “The (collection of the) Zakah, the (implementation of the) Hudood the (distribution of the) spoils and the (appointment of the) Jumu.ah are for the Sultan..” (A similar narration has been narrated by Ibn Abi Shaybah in his Musanaf and also by Imam Narghiyani. They have been deemed acceptable.)

Fatwa of Sheikh ul Hind, Maulana Mahmud ul Hassan who was imprisoned by the British in Malta for 3 years due to him sticking to the truth and not disowning the Uthmani (Ottoman) Khilafah. Shaikhul Hind and his student Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madni (later klnown as Shaikhul Islam) were arrested by the traitor Sharif Hussein in Hijaz (Makkah) on 23 Safar, 1335 A.H. They were sent to Malta via Cairo by a ship on 29 Rabius Thani 1335 A.H. corresponding to 21 February 1917 and clamped in the prison by the British for 3 years and 4 months. They were released and reached Bombay on June 8, 1920. This time of returning from Malta synchronized with the period of the beginning of the Khilafat Movement in India.

Sheikh ul Hind was the head of Dar al ulum Deoband at his time, he directly supported the Khilafah and worked hard for its maintenance. He had met the Wali (governor) of the Khilafah in Makkah and the assistants of the Khalifah. The Wali gave documents to the Sheikh to help in the struggle of Muslims of India against the tyranny of the British. The foremost of these documents was an appeal from the Wali to the Muslims of India. In his appeal, the Wali of Makkah praised Sheikh ul Hind for launching the struggle against the colonial British rule and also exhorted Muslims of India to extend their full support. He also assured the Muslims of India of material support from this movement from the Khilafah. The document written by the Governor of Makkah is known in history as Ghalib Namah. After performing Hajj in 1334 AH, the Sheikh also met with Anwar Pasha and Jamal Pasha, who were officials of the Khilafah. Anwar Pasha too wrote a letter of appeal for the Muslims of India, appreciating their constant struggle against the British tyranny. The wording of the letter was similar to the Ghalib Namah, assuring the material support of the Uthmani Khilafah to the Muslims of India in their struggle against the British. The letter also exhorted all citizens and employees of the Uthmani Khilafah to have full confidence in Sheikh ul Hind and prove men and material support to his movement. Copies of these letters were made, smuggled to India in the face of all the challenges posed by the British intelligence services and later distributed in the whole of Yaghestan.

Most of the Ulema in India stood up for the issue of the Khilafah in the beginning of the 20th Century, unfortunately today it has become forgotten by many.

The text of the Fatwa demonstrates how Sheikh ul Hind used to see the duty of Khilafah and his view towards co-operating with the colonialists.

Taken from the book English translation of the book, ‘The Prisoners Of Malta (Asira'n-e-Malta)’ by Maulana Syed Muhammad Mian. Published by Jamiat Ulama -I-Hind in Association with Manak Publications Pvt. Ltd.

“The enemies of Islam have left no stone unturned to strike against and harm the honour and prestige of Islam. Iraq, Palestine and Syria that were won over by the Prophet’s companions and his followers, after innumerous sacrifices, have once again become the targets of greed of the enemy of Islam. The honour of Khilafat is in tatters. Khalifat-ul-Muslimin (Muslim Caliph), who used to unite the entire community on this planet; who as vice-regent of Allah on this earth used to implement the universal law of Islam; who used to protect the rights and interests of Muslims and who used to preserve and ensure that the glory of the words of the Creator of this universe be preserved and implemented, has been surrounded by the enemies and made redundant.” [16th Safar 1339 Hijri (corresponding to October 29, 1920, Gregorian year)]

Let us work to re-establish this Khilafah once again.